I don't want to get the rep as the dingus who calls out proofing mistakes, but "Lindsay" is spelled as "Lindsey" in the headline and "Linsey" in the article, while there are literally multiple images in the article with the correct spelling. :) There's a couple other proofing/spelling errors, e.g., "Fungible" as "Fungable"; "Inus" instead of "Inu" (it should not be plural), and a few minor grammar nits to pick. To paraphrase columnist Mary Schmich's famous fake commencement speech,
Ladies and gentlemen of Flayrah: proofread. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, proofreading would be it.
Sorry. Partially. :)
I am not as intrinsically down on NFTs as many folks are -- an admission I am often hesitant to make -- but, concerns about energy use during generation aside, this particular use case for them, e.g., trying to create artificial scarcity of digital goods by using the NFTs as proxies for ownership, has always struck me as borderline nonsensical. The examples of "use this service to create an NFT for any individual tweet" show why: there's no verification that the NFT is being "minted" by anyone with a legally-recognized right to the tweet's content. If I saw some great furry art that an artist tweeted out and created a NFT for it, legally, all I have is, well, a unique token that contains a proxy to that tweet. The artist still has copyright of the artwork; the tweeter still has an implicitly-recognized copyright of the tweet's text. What I've generated is literally no more valuable than if I'd Photoshopped a receipt to the Mona Lisa; the only way I can get money out of it is to sell it someone too ignorant to understand that if they take that receipt to the Louvre and ask for their painting, they're going to have a bad time of it.
I would argue that the initial strong outcry about "NFTs stealing artwork" was largely off-base for the reasons I've described above; creating an NFT of artwork you don't have doesn't give you any legal right to the artwork. You can rightly object that it's a way for a scammer to make money off artwork that they didn't create and that this indirectly steals money from the artist, but that just makes NFTs a new spin on an old problem. (Also, I hope nobody making that objection has ever also argued "software and music piracy is fine because it it's not actually stealing anything," because if they have, there is an Inconsistent Argument Siren going off in the background.)
I don't want to get the rep as the dingus who calls out proofing mistakes, but "Lindsay" is spelled as "Lindsey" in the headline and "Linsey" in the article, while there are literally multiple images in the article with the correct spelling. :) There's a couple other proofing/spelling errors, e.g., "Fungible" as "Fungable"; "Inus" instead of "Inu" (it should not be plural), and a few minor grammar nits to pick. To paraphrase columnist Mary Schmich's famous fake commencement speech,
Sorry. Partially. :)
I am not as intrinsically down on NFTs as many folks are -- an admission I am often hesitant to make -- but, concerns about energy use during generation aside, this particular use case for them, e.g., trying to create artificial scarcity of digital goods by using the NFTs as proxies for ownership, has always struck me as borderline nonsensical. The examples of "use this service to create an NFT for any individual tweet" show why: there's no verification that the NFT is being "minted" by anyone with a legally-recognized right to the tweet's content. If I saw some great furry art that an artist tweeted out and created a NFT for it, legally, all I have is, well, a unique token that contains a proxy to that tweet. The artist still has copyright of the artwork; the tweeter still has an implicitly-recognized copyright of the tweet's text. What I've generated is literally no more valuable than if I'd Photoshopped a receipt to the Mona Lisa; the only way I can get money out of it is to sell it someone too ignorant to understand that if they take that receipt to the Louvre and ask for their painting, they're going to have a bad time of it.
I would argue that the initial strong outcry about "NFTs stealing artwork" was largely off-base for the reasons I've described above; creating an NFT of artwork you don't have doesn't give you any legal right to the artwork. You can rightly object that it's a way for a scammer to make money off artwork that they didn't create and that this indirectly steals money from the artist, but that just makes NFTs a new spin on an old problem. (Also, I hope nobody making that objection has ever also argued "software and music piracy is fine because it it's not actually stealing anything," because if they have, there is an Inconsistent Argument Siren going off in the background.)
— Chipotle